People v. Macasaet
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused was found to be selling native wine at retail without the license required by law. The evidence presented by the prosecution consisted of the testimony of two credible witnesses. Procedural History: The accused was tried and convicted in the lower court, which sentenced him to pay a fine of P300 and costs, with subsidiary imprisonment of five months in case of insolvency, and directed him to obtain the required license. The Appeal: The defendant appealed the judgment of the lower court, primarily contesting the conviction and the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment.
Issue(s)
Whether the accused unlawfully sold native wine at retail without the required license. Whether the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for insolvency is legal under the circumstances.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed in all respects, except for the part imposing subsidiary imprisonment for insolvency, which is reversed. The costs of the instance are assessed against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that the evidence presented, particularly the testimony of Sergeant William Bigger and Corporal James B. Jelks, sufficiently established that the accused had been selling native wine at retail without the necessary license. The accused's defense, which admitted delivering wine but claimed it was a gift, was deemed less credible than the prosecution's account of a sale, especially given prior sales between the parties. The Court held that this conduct constituted a violation of Section 66, in relation to Section 68, subsection 5, of the Internal Revenue Law. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the subsidiary imprisonment of five months imposed by the lower court in case of insolvency with respect to the fine and costs was illegal. The Court clarified that Section 66 of the Internal Revenue Law prescribes either a fine or imprisonment as principal penalties, and does not provide for subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency when a fine is imposed. The Court further noted that Act No. 1732, which mandates subsidiary imprisonment, went into effect after the trial of the case and could not be applied retroactively, as penal statutes cannot be made retroactive unless favorable to the accused, in accordance with Article 21 of the Penal Code.
Main Doctrine
The imposition of subsidiary imprisonment for insolvency in cases of fines must be explicitly provided by law. Furthermore, penal statutes cannot be applied retroactively unless they are favorable to the accused, adhering to the principle of legality enshrined in Article 21 of the Penal Code.